The editors of the Wall Street Journal seem to have learned
that caution has its uses when practicing the art of punditry. And so, they are
being less brash than before endorsing someone like Lindsey Graham. In fact,
lest he commit the faux pas in the future that will embarrass them, they put in
a good word without going overboard praising him to cloud nine the way they
might have done it in the past.
They wrote a piece under the title: “Graham for the Defense”
and the subtitle: “The foreign-policy hawk was right about Obama when others
were mute.” It was published on June 4, 2015 in the Journal. Despite that
title, the piece is about George Pataki as much as it is about Lindsey Graham,
both of whom announced their entry into the Republican race for the Presidency
just this week.
While praising him for the correct positions he adopted, and
chiding him for the positions they regard as incorrect, they left it to someone
else to praise him to cloud nine. In fact, it took someone by the name of Ira
Straus to recommend that Lindsey Graham be elected president of the United States .
It is that Graham had distinguished himself as a consistent performer in the
guild of Jewish ass-kissers, and Strauss happens to be a Jew with an ass
yearning to be kissed.
Straus gave his report as to whom he would entrust his back
and that of Israel .
He wrote the report in the form of an article that came under the title: “Why
America Needs Lindsey Graham,” published on June 2, 2015 in National Review
Online, two days before the Wall Street Journal piece. He tells at the start of
the article why he made that pick: “Obama has dug America deep into a hole.” But no,
don't get any ideas, my friend; Straus is here talking about a different hole.
And there is more to his list of reasons. First of all,
Graham has gravitas, says Straus. This means Graham has dignity … which happens
to be the view that Jews have of those who kiss their butts. Straus goes on to
explain: “He would fight to win.” So you wish to know how he knows that. And he
tells you: “Lindsey Graham has spoken out … He has spoken out forcefully … he
has described … he has identified,” says Straus.
And this is where my memory catapulted some sixty years into
the past. I was in my early teens when I watched a French movie titled: “Le
Costaud des Batignoles,” which would roughly translate into: “Tough Guy of the
Turf.” It is the story of an ordinary guy who could not defend himself under
ordinary circumstances, let alone protect the turf. But when he kissed his
gorgeous looking girlfriend, he instantly gained the strength of a hulk, and
beat the crap out of his tormentors.
Lindsey Graham may not have a gorgeous looking girlfriend to
kiss, but Ira Straus implies that he has the rear end of many Jews he can kiss
– not the least of which being that of the Bibi. This is what gives Lindsey his
dignity, as well as the wisdom to speak, to describe accurately and to identify
America 's
enemies, says Straus. His subtle point being that if Graham is President and America is
attacked, he will kiss the Jewish ass and go on to lick the attackers like a
praying mantis licks its bugs.
Analogies aside, how in real terms will Graham defeat the
guerillas of the Islamic state? Straus has an answer for that. He says he will
triple the American boots on the ground from the current 3,000 to 10,000. This
should lick the bugs, he assures the readers, because it is a serious number
that falls between the current meager level, and “the limitless caricature of
hundreds of thousands or more put forward as a straw man to burn.”
And this is where two old debates come to mind because they
can help clarify something. From one debate, we draw the lesson that America and its allies defeated regular armies
in Europe and Asia during WW II, after which America maintained troops in those
countries to keep the peace. From the other debate, we draw the lesson that America , and to
some degree its allies, were defeated by the Vietcong guerillas of the
Vietnamese people.
The difference between those two situations is that in WW
II, the enemy governments started the wars. When their armies were defeated,
the civilian populations welcomed the end of the war, and greeted the
triumphant allied troops with flowers, hugs and kisses. By contrast, the
Vietnamese people saw their country invaded by an alien force, so they
mobilized to defeat it themselves … which they did, armed only with the
proverbial “bows and arrows,” and going against half a million American troops
armed with jets, gunships and chemical defoliants.
Thus, it stands to reason that if America
goes against the guerillas of the Islamic State in force, the young Muslims of
the world will not do what the Jewish pundits had predicted the Iraqi people
will do when America invades
Iraq
– mainly that the troops will be greeted with flowers, hugs and kisses.
No, the Americans were not greeted in this fashion. Instead,
when ordinary Iraqis felt that the Americans were not going to get out anytime
soon, they cut up their bodies like they carve mutton, and hung the body parts
to dry in the hot sun. This is how the guerillas of the Islamic State will
react till every American is killed or kicked out of their turf even if it
takes a hundred years to accomplish the mission.
Let Straus and Graham be warned that not even 10 million
American and allied troops – in addition to the 10 thousand they suggested –
will suffice to maintain the peace in the Middle East if America tried to force
its way into the Arab or Muslim “Ummah”.